Why are Democrats against Voter ID?

[JoeB131]

Why has Biden flooded the USA with illegals?

They are votes for him. Even if he gets half of them, they are his voters. He welcomes illegals. Watch this video and tell me if Chris Cuomo is a Democrat or Republican. Listen to him go all out to have no voter ID. HE knows who they vote for.

Same reason progressives opposed literacy tests and poll taxes.

 

[my2¢]

Perhaps after 78 years of Democrats supporting voter suppression of minorities between the end of Reconstruction 1877 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they figure being against voter-id is a means to balance things out?

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps after 78 years of Democrats supporting voter suppression of minorities between the end of Reconstruction 1877 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they figure being against voter-id is a means to balance things out?

Or the people who were into suppressing minorities moved to the GOP after the Democrats started supporting civil and political rights.

 

[Robert W]

Perhaps after 78 years of Democrats supporting voter suppression of minorities between the end of Reconstruction 1877 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, they figure being against voter-id is a means to balance things out?

Voter ID has nothing to do with race. Democrats need votes and crave those by non citizens. They are not fluent speaking English so hand them cash and democrats own them.

 

[Robert W]

Or the people who were into suppressing minorities moved to the GOP after the Democrats started supporting civil and political rights.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[JoeB131]

That makes no sense at all.

Sure it does.

It's 1964, and you are an inbred, racist, slack-jawed southerner. The Democrats have just voted for the Civil and Voting Rights acts of 1964.

Where do you go?

Well, for 1968, you went with George Wallace... but by 1972, you were full bore Republican. And that's where they've stayed.

 

[Robert W]

Sure it does.

It's 1964, and you are an inbred, racist, slack-jawed southerner. The Democrats have just voted for the Civil and Voting Rights acts of 1964.

Where do you go?

Well, for 1968, you went with George Wallace... but by 1972, you were full bore Republican. And that's where they've stayed.

I know I read the record of this in the Congressional record, but believe few others here did that. First in 1964, the bulk of Democrats fought the civil rights you mention. It was proven as the filibuster against the law by Democrats. They did not care what Johnson wanted, which was not freedom for blacks, but votes from blacks.
Factually we, former Democrats did not abandon them when you claim, we left in the 1980s after the debacle by Jimmy Carter hit us

What you suggest is the racist Democrats really did not want to be racists so they leaped to being Republicans. I wish that happened. But we former Democrats bailed on long past that.

 

[Robert W]

Sure it does.

It's 1964, and you are an inbred, racist, slack-jawed southerner. The Democrats have just voted for the Civil and Voting Rights acts of 1964.

Where do you go?

Well, for 1968, you went with George Wallace... but by 1972, you were full bore Republican. And that's where they've stayed.

12 presidents owned slaves. It was not just Democrats. In fact a good case is made that of the South during Slavery the rich owned slaves but the workers did not. The rich could afford to buy slaves.

 

[JoeB131]

I know I read the record of this in the Congressional record, but believe few others here did that. First in 1964, the bulk of Democrats fought the civil rights you mention. It was proven as the filibuster against the law by Democrats. They did not care what Johnson wanted, which was not freedom for blacks, but votes from blacks.
Factually we, former Democrats did not abandon them when you claim, we left in the 1980s after the debacle by Jimmy Carter hit us

What you suggest is the racist Democrats really did not want to be racists so they leaped to being Republicans. I wish that happened. But we former Democrats bailed on long past that.

Uh, guy, the vote for the bill was 73-27. 46 Democrats voted for it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The voting rights act, overwealmingly supported by Democrats

(Democrats 221–61, Republicans 112–24)

Now, yeah, SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS voted against it... then they became REpublicans. Amazing how that works.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why do Democrats oppose such a common-sense requirement as voter ID, even though most civilized nations have the same requirement, and even though you have to show a photo ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, etc.? Because they want to make voter fraud as easy as possible.

BTW, RFK Jr. supports voter ID laws.

 

[catatomic]

Well think about it. Your first cut at classification is skin color. Again, most would consider that racist.

Who said my first cut was skin color? Straight up poverty could come before.

Honestly, race might come first, because there's a long history of Black people coming from behind in the world, but it could be race, poverty, zip code, or a general adversity score like colleges use.

 

[catatomic]

No lie at all.

Bullshit. Educate yourself. The story I listed concentrated on Indiana and Georgia - the two states with the strictest voter ID where Democrats falsely claimed blacks would not be able to vote. THat was the lie, a shameful racist lie. BLack participation increased in these two states and increased or stayed the same in every other state that enacted voter ID. As we're pointing out here, the bullshit that blacks will be disenfranchised by voter ID laws is a bald racist lie.

Sorry, you are lying.

 

[Rawley]

Who said my first cut was skin color?

You. "It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."

Straight up poverty could come before.

But you didn't start there. You started with skin color.

Honestly, race might come first, because there's a long history of Black people coming from behind in the world, but it could be race, poverty, zip code, or a general adversity score like colleges use.

 

[Rawley]

Sorry, you are lying.

What's the lie sweetpea?

 

[catatomic]

You. "It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."


But you didn't start there. You started with skin color.

Another lie. You have not demonstrated that I said race should come first, although it may be true.

Honestly, race might come first, because there's a long history of Black people coming from behind in the world, but it could be race, poverty, zip code, or a general adversity score like colleges use.

 

[Rawley]

Another lie. You have not demonstrated that I said race should come first, although it may be true.

Sorry sweetpea this is the first time you came out with your "classification" theory "It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."

You went straight to skin color.

 

[catatomic]

Sorry sweetpea this is the first time you came out with your "classification" theory "It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."

You went straight to skin color.

Look, I'm trying not to be obnoxious, but let's break it down:

"It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."

I said it is a classification, not that it was the best classification.

Please, I want to be your friend, but I cannot sit here and be racist.

 

[Rawley]

Look, I'm trying not to be obnoxious, but let's break it down:

"It's different because it's proportionately more of Black people, hence it is a classification of people that can be drawn to help people overall."

I said it is a classification, not that it was the best classification.

Please, I want to be your friend, but I cannot sit here and be racist.

Friends don't call friends a "liar" which you've done repeatedly here.

 

[catatomic]

Friends don't call friends a "liar" which you've done repeatedly here.

I'm sorry for calling you a liar, but what you posted from the heritage foundation and from your own posts was, in my strong opinion, not true.

 

[skye]